12 Consequences of Attacking Iran by Jon Basil Utley

The murdered Israeli leader Gen. Yitzhak Rabin opposed the First Gulf
War in 1990, warning that one never knows when starting a war where it
will lead. As Bush and the neocons are reportedly planning to attack
Iran, we should all think of the likely consequences.

Most Americans already believe that George Bush is not much influenced
by facts, but rather by his ideology. Already he is reportedly
thinking of his legacy and dreaming that history will prove him
"right." More disturbing are his religious beliefs, in particular his
daily readings of Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers, who argues that
if plans and events go wrong, it just means that God is testing
believers' faith, not that strategies should be changed. This may also
explain Bush's aversion
to diplomacy. After all, God does not "negotiate" with evil.
Various reports state that Iran is years away from the ability to
produce a single nuke. In a few years' time the government in Iran
could
easily change or modify its positions; indeed, already President
Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad is losing power. But time is running out for Bush
(although
not for America).

An article about Iran in The American Conservative by former CIA
officer
Phil Giraldi says that Bush may attack before Tony Blair retires in
April. Blair has already just sent two British minesweepers to the
Gulf.

U.S. war plans are reportedly counting on a few weeks of war (as they
did with Iraq) to disable Iran's nuclear and military industries. The
concept that the U.S. could simply destroy much of Iran then proclaim
the war over neglects all the lessons of Iraq, namely that a wounded
Muslim nation only gives up when it wants to. Repeatedly, the U.S.
loses
when we expect enemies to play by American rules.
Following are consequences we must anticipate following such an
American
attack:

Iran wouldblockade the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has new, "state of the
art" Russian anti-aircraft defenses as well as powerful Sunburn anti-
ship missiles purchased from the Ukraine, Chinese mines, and also
itself
manufactures other missiles. Anti-ship mines may already be in place,
able to be activated from shore.

U.S. strategy calls for destroying all the anti-ship missile
emplacements and small missile and mine-laying boats long deployed
along
Iran's coastline. Obviously, a surprise U.S. attack may miss some
Iranian weaponry, or U.S. Navy anti-missile systems may not work to
defend all ships in the Gulf. Probably Iran would try to sink tankers
(see a projected scenario) to set off a worldwide panic for oil
rather
than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause
insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits. Just
the risk of all this happening should be cause of great concern for
America and the whole world.

War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-
aircraft
and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying
Iran's
oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more
millions
of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney
hadn't
shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a
plan
of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere.
Jim
Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war
would
quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.

The far greater risk is that Iran would then retaliate against the
hopelessly exposed Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Gulf states oil facilities.
Iran
has already warned Qatar, where the U.S. has CENTCOM, that its vast
gas
compression facilities would be targeted if it allows a U.S. attack.
Washington announced that it was sending Patriot missiles to defend
our "allies," but there is no assurance that these would all work.
After
all, only one Iranian missile (or ground attack from sympathetic
Shias)
would need to get through. Also, the Bush administration has made
secret
the publication of test results for the U.S. anti-missile program.
This
could easily cover up corruption and incompetence. We already now are
finding out that some of our largest defense contractors have
designed
ships for the Coast Guard that aren't even seaworthy.

The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow
again
quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause
foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent
sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe
repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any
real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in
worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World
buying power.

American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under
threat
of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply
our
terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing
that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks
in
America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting
wars.
The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow
finite.
But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of
reprisals inside the U.S.


The attack would make America even more suspect and hated in the
whole
Islamic world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security
adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely
to
lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of
Islam at large."


War would greatly increase Russian power vis-à-vis Europe as the
latter
would become even more dependent upon Russian energy supplies. Already
a
majority of Europeans think that Washington is the greatest threat to
world peace. War would severely strain the American alliance.


We don't know the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese weapons
that
have been sold to Iran. There is a risk that they might be very
effective.
We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke
Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow
Gulf.
He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all
Americans
behind him in retaliating against Iran. It is hard to know what is in
his (and Cheney's) mind, but we do know that they are ignorant and
full
of wishful thinking.


American forces in Iraq would be very vulnerable to modern war
supplies
from Iran, for example, effective anti-tank weaponry such as that
used
by Hezbollah to destroy dozens of Israeli tanks. The long U.S. supply
convoys from Kuwait would be subject to much greater attacks. A
sustained Iranian missile attack on the Green Zone in Baghdad or the
Doha base camp in Kuwait could kill many Americans.


War would curtail the great influence of the religious Right in
Washington. Christian fundamentalists are the backbone of support for
continuing wars and chaos in the Middle East (see Armageddon Lobby).
Their power would finally backfire as more Americans become wary of
leaders who claim a direct line to God. The fundamentalists' passion
for
war, callousness towards the death of foreigners, fear and (almost
total) ignorance of the outside world, and unstinting support for
police
state measures out of Washington have already discredited them among
many Americans. Their fomenting another war would be a final blow.


The disasters for America could also weaken and challenge the power
of
the Israel Lobby, especially AIPAC. At least that is the concern of
writers at the major Jewish newspaper The Forward. The writers note
concern for the perceptions that Israeli interests fomented the
attack
on Iraq. The antiwar and anti-empire movement is also heavily Jewish,
but without "the New York money people" pushing America into war with
Iran, as warned by Gen. Wesley Clark.


Finally, another war might be the final nail in the Republican coffin
for a generation. The party would fracture. Republicans may be
the "Daddy Party," which once was thought to provide masculinity to
foreign policy, but as James Pinkerton says, "If dad keeps wrecking
the
car, then there may be reason to change.

What's a neocon?

On Feb 10, 2:21 am, "RecScubaPoster" <recscubapos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The murdered Israeli leader Gen. Yitzhak Rabin opposed the First Gulf
> War in 1990, warning that one never knows when starting a war where it
> will lead. As Bush and the neocons are reportedly planning to attack
> Iran, we should all think of the likely consequences.
>
> Most Americans already believe that George Bush is not much influenced
> by facts, but rather by his ideology. Already he is reportedly
> thinking of his legacy and dreaming that history will prove him
> "right." More disturbing are his religious beliefs, in particular his
> daily readings of Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers, who argues that
> if plans and events go wrong, it just means that God is testing
> believers' faith, not that strategies should be changed. This may also
> explain Bush's aversion
> to diplomacy. After all, God does not "negotiate" with evil.
> Various reports state that Iran is years away from the ability to
> produce a single nuke. In a few years' time the government in Iran
> could
> easily change or modify its positions; indeed, already President
> Mahmoud
> Ahmadinejad is losing power. But time is running out for Bush
> (although
> not for America).
>
> An article about Iran in The American Conservative by former CIA
> officer
> Phil Giraldi says that Bush may attack before Tony Blair retires in
> April. Blair has already just sent two British minesweepers to the
> Gulf.
>
> U.S. war plans are reportedly counting on a few weeks of war (as they
> did with Iraq) to disable Iran's nuclear and military industries. The
> concept that the U.S. could simply destroy much of Iran then proclaim
> the war over neglects all the lessons of Iraq, namely that a wounded
> Muslim nation only gives up when it wants to. Repeatedly, the U.S.
> loses
> when we expect enemies to play by American rules.
> Following are consequences we must anticipate following such an
> American
> attack:
>
> Iran wouldblockade the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has new, "state of the
> art" Russian anti-aircraft defenses as well as powerful Sunburn anti-
> ship missiles purchased from the Ukraine, Chinese mines, and also
> itself
> manufactures other missiles. Anti-ship mines may already be in place,
> able to be activated from shore.
>
> U.S. strategy calls for destroying all the anti-ship missile
> emplacements and small missile and mine-laying boats long deployed
> along
> Iran's coastline. Obviously, a surprise U.S. attack may miss some
> Iranian weaponry, or U.S. Navy anti-missile systems may not work to
> defend all ships in the Gulf. Probably Iran would try to sink tankers
> (see a projected scenario) to set off a worldwide panic for oil
> rather
> than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause
> insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits. Just
> the risk of all this happening should be cause of great concern for
> America and the whole world.
>
> War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-
> aircraft
> and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying
> Iran's
> oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more
> millions
> of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney
> hadn't
> shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a
> plan
> of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere.
> Jim
> Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war
> would
> quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.
>
> The far greater risk is that Iran would then retaliate against the
> hopelessly exposed Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Gulf states oil facilities.
> Iran
> has already warned Qatar, where the U.S. has CENTCOM, that its vast
> gas
> compression facilities would be targeted if it allows a U.S. attack.
> Washington announced that it was sending Patriot missiles to defend
> our "allies," but there is no assurance that these would all work.
> After
> all, only one Iranian missile (or ground attack from sympathetic
> Shias)
> would need to get through. Also, the Bush administration has made
> secret
> the publication of test results for the U.S. anti-missile program.
> This
> could easily cover up corruption and incompetence. We already now are
> finding out that some of our largest defense contractors have
> designed
> ships for the Coast Guard that aren't even seaworthy.
>
> The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow
> again
> quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause
> foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent
> sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe
> repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any
> real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in
> worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World
> buying power.
>
> American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under
> threat
> of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply
> our
> terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing
> that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks
> in
> America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting
> wars.
> The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow
> finite.
> But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of
> reprisals inside the U.S.
>
> The attack would make America even more suspect and hated in the
> whole
> Islamic world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security
> adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely
> to
> lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of
> Islam at large."
>
> War would greatly increase Russian power vis-à-vis Europe as the
> latter
> would become even more dependent upon Russian energy supplies. Already
> a
> majority of Europeans think that Washington is the greatest threat to
> world peace. War would severely strain the American alliance.
>
> We don't know the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese weapons
> that
> have been sold to Iran. There is a risk that they might be very
> effective.
> We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke
> Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow
> Gulf.
> He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all
> Americans
> behind him in retaliating against Iran. It is hard to know what is in
> his (and Cheney's) mind, but we do know that they are ignorant and
> full
> of wishful thinking.
>
> American forces in Iraq would be very vulnerable to modern war
> supplies
> from Iran, for example, effective anti-tank weaponry such as that
> used
> by Hezbollah to destroy dozens of Israeli tanks. The long U.S. supply
> convoys from Kuwait would be subject to much greater attacks. A
> sustained Iranian missile attack on the Green Zone in Baghdad or the
> Doha base camp in Kuwait could kill many Americans.
>
> War would curtail the great influence of the religious Right in
> Washington. Christian fundamentalists are the backbone of support for
> continuing wars and chaos in the Middle East (see Armageddon Lobby).
> Their power would finally backfire as more Americans become wary of
> leaders who claim a direct line to God. The fundamentalists' passion
> for
> war, callousness towards the death of foreigners, fear and (almost
> total) ignorance of the outside world, and unstinting support for
> police
> state measures out of Washington have already discredited them among
> many Americans. Their fomenting another war would be a final blow.
>
> The disasters for America could also weaken and challenge the power
> of
> the Israel Lobby, especially AIPAC. At least that is the concern of
> writers at the major Jewish newspaper The Forward. The writers note
> concern for the perceptions that Israeli interests fomented the
> attack
> on Iraq. The antiwar and anti-empire movement is also heavily Jewish,
> but without "the New York money people" pushing America into war with
> Iran, as warned by Gen. Wesley Clark.
>
> Finally, another war might be the final nail in the Republican coffin
> for a generation. The party would fracture. Republicans may be
> the "Daddy Party," which once was thought to provide masculinity to
> foreign policy, but as James Pinkerton says, "If dad keeps wrecking
> the
> car, then there may be reason to change.

Thank you for your open eyed description. I am voting for you next time


"RecScubaPoster" <recscubaposter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171092081.378946.252090@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
The murdered Israeli leader Gen. Yitzhak Rabin opposed the First Gulf
War in 1990, warning that one never knows when starting a war where it
will lead. As Bush and the neocons are reportedly planning to attack
Iran, we should all think of the likely consequences.

Most Americans already believe that George Bush is not much influenced
by facts, but rather by his ideology. Already he is reportedly
thinking of his legacy and dreaming that history will prove him
"right." More disturbing are his religious beliefs, in particular his
daily readings of Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers, who argues that
if plans and events go wrong, it just means that God is testing
believers' faith, not that strategies should be changed. This may also
explain Bush's aversion
to diplomacy. After all, God does not "negotiate" with evil.
Various reports state that Iran is years away from the ability to
produce a single nuke. In a few years' time the government in Iran
could
easily change or modify its positions; indeed, already President
Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad is losing power. But time is running out for Bush
(although
not for America).

An article about Iran in The American Conservative by former CIA
officer
Phil Giraldi says that Bush may attack before Tony Blair retires in
April. Blair has already just sent two British minesweepers to the
Gulf.

U.S. war plans are reportedly counting on a few weeks of war (as they
did with Iraq) to disable Iran's nuclear and military industries. The
concept that the U.S. could simply destroy much of Iran then proclaim
the war over neglects all the lessons of Iraq, namely that a wounded
Muslim nation only gives up when it wants to. Repeatedly, the U.S.
loses
when we expect enemies to play by American rules.
Following are consequences we must anticipate following such an
American
attack:

Iran wouldblockade the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has new, "state of the
art" Russian anti-aircraft defenses as well as powerful Sunburn anti-
ship missiles purchased from the Ukraine, Chinese mines, and also
itself
manufactures other missiles. Anti-ship mines may already be in place,
able to be activated from shore.

U.S. strategy calls for destroying all the anti-ship missile
emplacements and small missile and mine-laying boats long deployed
along
Iran's coastline. Obviously, a surprise U.S. attack may miss some
Iranian weaponry, or U.S. Navy anti-missile systems may not work to
defend all ships in the Gulf. Probably Iran would try to sink tankers
(see a projected scenario) to set off a worldwide panic for oil
rather
than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause
insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits. Just
the risk of all this happening should be cause of great concern for
America and the whole world.

War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-
aircraft
and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying
Iran's
oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more
millions
of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney
hadn't
shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a
plan
of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere.
Jim
Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war
would
quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.

The far greater risk is that Iran would then retaliate against the
hopelessly exposed Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Gulf states oil facilities.
Iran
has already warned Qatar, where the U.S. has CENTCOM, that its vast
gas
compression facilities would be targeted if it allows a U.S. attack.
Washington announced that it was sending Patriot missiles to defend
our "allies," but there is no assurance that these would all work.
After
all, only one Iranian missile (or ground attack from sympathetic
Shias)
would need to get through. Also, the Bush administration has made
secret
the publication of test results for the U.S. anti-missile program.
This
could easily cover up corruption and incompetence. We already now are
finding out that some of our largest defense contractors have
designed
ships for the Coast Guard that aren't even seaworthy.

The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow
again
quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause
foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent
sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe
repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any
real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in
worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World
buying power.

American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under
threat
of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply
our
terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing
that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks
in
America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting
wars.
The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow
finite.
But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of
reprisals inside the U.S.


The attack would make America even more suspect and hated in the
whole
Islamic world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security
adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely
to
lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of
Islam at large."


War would greatly increase Russian power vis-à-vis Europe as the
latter
would become even more dependent upon Russian energy supplies. Already
a
majority of Europeans think that Washington is the greatest threat to
world peace. War would severely strain the American alliance.


We don't know the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese weapons
that
have been sold to Iran. There is a risk that they might be very
effective.
We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke
Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow
Gulf.
He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all
Americans
behind him in retaliating against Iran. It is hard to know what is in
his (and Cheney's) mind, but we do know that they are ignorant and
full
of wishful thinking.


American forces in Iraq would be very vulnerable to modern war
supplies
from Iran, for example, effective anti-tank weaponry such as that
used
by Hezbollah to destroy dozens of Israeli tanks. The long U.S. supply
convoys from Kuwait would be subject to much greater attacks. A
sustained Iranian missile attack on the Green Zone in Baghdad or the
Doha base camp in Kuwait could kill many Americans.


War would curtail the great influence of the religious Right in
Washington. Christian fundamentalists are the backbone of support for
continuing wars and chaos in the Middle East (see Armageddon Lobby).
Their power would finally backfire as more Americans become wary of
leaders who claim a direct line to God. The fundamentalists' passion
for
war, callousness towards the death of foreigners, fear and (almost
total) ignorance of the outside world, and unstinting support for
police
state measures out of Washington have already discredited them among
many Americans. Their fomenting another war would be a final blow.


The disasters for America could also weaken and challenge the power
of
the Israel Lobby, especially AIPAC. At least that is the concern of
writers at the major Jewish newspaper The Forward. The writers note
concern for the perceptions that Israeli interests fomented the
attack
on Iraq. The antiwar and anti-empire movement is also heavily Jewish,
but without "the New York money people" pushing America into war with
Iran, as warned by Gen. Wesley Clark.


Finally, another war might be the final nail in the Republican coffin
for a generation. The party would fracture. Republicans may be
the "Daddy Party," which once was thought to provide masculinity to
foreign policy, but as James Pinkerton says, "If dad keeps wrecking
the
car, then there may be reason to change.

<marshallkarp@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171121347.891455.258440@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...

What's a neocon?

A term used by barking moonbats to describe anyone who doesnt suffer the
mental disease that makes said moonbats think like they do.

Simple end to all terrorists attacks #1: ...simply bury all terrorists in
the skin of a pig. This will prevent their souls from reaching the afterlife
as they will be "tainted".

Simple end to all terrorists attacks #2: Show the willingness to destroy
so-called innocent civiliians. The reason that the Iraq war has gotten out
of hand is that the US is not willing to fight a war the way the
"terrorists" are. Drop a MOAB on Sadr City....any other attacks on US
troops or interests result in another bomb on another city...inculding
cities in IRAN.


"RecScubaPoster" <recscubaposter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171092081.378946.252090@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
The murdered Israeli leader Gen. Yitzhak Rabin opposed the First Gulf
War in 1990, warning that one never knows when starting a war where it
will lead. As Bush and the neocons are reportedly planning to attack
Iran, we should all think of the likely consequences.

Most Americans already believe that George Bush is not much influenced
by facts, but rather by his ideology. Already he is reportedly
thinking of his legacy and dreaming that history will prove him
"right." More disturbing are his religious beliefs, in particular his
daily readings of Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers, who argues that
if plans and events go wrong, it just means that God is testing
believers' faith, not that strategies should be changed. This may also
explain Bush's aversion
to diplomacy. After all, God does not "negotiate" with evil.
Various reports state that Iran is years away from the ability to
produce a single nuke. In a few years' time the government in Iran
could
easily change or modify its positions; indeed, already President
Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad is losing power. But time is running out for Bush
(although
not for America).

An article about Iran in The American Conservative by former CIA
officer
Phil Giraldi says that Bush may attack before Tony Blair retires in
April. Blair has already just sent two British minesweepers to the
Gulf.

U.S. war plans are reportedly counting on a few weeks of war (as they
did with Iraq) to disable Iran's nuclear and military industries. The
concept that the U.S. could simply destroy much of Iran then proclaim
the war over neglects all the lessons of Iraq, namely that a wounded
Muslim nation only gives up when it wants to. Repeatedly, the U.S.
loses
when we expect enemies to play by American rules.
Following are consequences we must anticipate following such an
American
attack:

Iran wouldblockade the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has new, "state of the
art" Russian anti-aircraft defenses as well as powerful Sunburn anti-
ship missiles purchased from the Ukraine, Chinese mines, and also
itself
manufactures other missiles. Anti-ship mines may already be in place,
able to be activated from shore.

U.S. strategy calls for destroying all the anti-ship missile
emplacements and small missile and mine-laying boats long deployed
along
Iran's coastline. Obviously, a surprise U.S. attack may miss some
Iranian weaponry, or U.S. Navy anti-missile systems may not work to
defend all ships in the Gulf. Probably Iran would try to sink tankers
(see a projected scenario) to set off a worldwide panic for oil
rather
than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause
insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits. Just
the risk of all this happening should be cause of great concern for
America and the whole world.

War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-
aircraft
and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying
Iran's
oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more
millions
of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney
hadn't
shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a
plan
of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere.
Jim
Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war
would
quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.

The far greater risk is that Iran would then retaliate against the
hopelessly exposed Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Gulf states oil facilities.
Iran
has already warned Qatar, where the U.S. has CENTCOM, that its vast
gas
compression facilities would be targeted if it allows a U.S. attack.
Washington announced that it was sending Patriot missiles to defend
our "allies," but there is no assurance that these would all work.
After
all, only one Iranian missile (or ground attack from sympathetic
Shias)
would need to get through. Also, the Bush administration has made
secret
the publication of test results for the U.S. anti-missile program.
This
could easily cover up corruption and incompetence. We already now are
finding out that some of our largest defense contractors have
designed
ships for the Coast Guard that aren't even seaworthy.

The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow
again
quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause
foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent
sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe
repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any
real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in
worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World
buying power.

American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under
threat
of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply
our
terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing
that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks
in
America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting
wars.
The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow
finite.
But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of
reprisals inside the U.S.


The attack would make America even more suspect and hated in the
whole
Islamic world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security
adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely
to
lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of
Islam at large."


War would greatly increase Russian power vis-à-vis Europe as the
latter
would become even more dependent upon Russian energy supplies. Already
a
majority of Europeans think that Washington is the greatest threat to
world peace. War would severely strain the American alliance.


We don't know the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese weapons
that
have been sold to Iran. There is a risk that they might be very
effective.
We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke
Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow
Gulf.
He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all
Americans
behind him in retaliating against Iran. It is hard to know what is in
his (and Cheney's) mind, but we do know that they are ignorant and
full
of wishful thinking.


American forces in Iraq would be very vulnerable to modern war
supplies
from Iran, for example, effective anti-tank weaponry such as that
used
by Hezbollah to destroy dozens of Israeli tanks. The long U.S. supply
convoys from Kuwait would be subject to much greater attacks. A
sustained Iranian missile attack on the Green Zone in Baghdad or the
Doha base camp in Kuwait could kill many Americans.


War would curtail the great influence of the religious Right in
Washington. Christian fundamentalists are the backbone of support for
continuing wars and chaos in the Middle East (see Armageddon Lobby).
Their power would finally backfire as more Americans become wary of
leaders who claim a direct line to God. The fundamentalists' passion
for
war, callousness towards the death of foreigners, fear and (almost
total) ignorance of the outside world, and unstinting support for
police
state measures out of Washington have already discredited them among
many Americans. Their fomenting another war would be a final blow.


The disasters for America could also weaken and challenge the power
of
the Israel Lobby, especially AIPAC. At least that is the concern of
writers at the major Jewish newspaper The Forward. The writers note
concern for the perceptions that Israeli interests fomented the
attack
on Iraq. The antiwar and anti-empire movement is also heavily Jewish,
but without "the New York money people" pushing America into war with
Iran, as warned by Gen. Wesley Clark.


Finally, another war might be the final nail in the Republican coffin
for a generation. The party would fracture. Republicans may be
the "Daddy Party," which once was thought to provide masculinity to
foreign policy, but as James Pinkerton says, "If dad keeps wrecking
the
car, then there may be reason to change.

"Buhda" <akhanna@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45cdfe24$0$27101$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Simple end to all terrorists attacks #1: ...simply bury all terrorists in
> the skin of a pig. This will prevent their souls from reaching the
afterlife
> as they will be "tainted".

Sounds good... It's not like pig is good for BBQ or anything...

> Simple end to all terrorists attacks #2: Show the willingness to destroy
> so-called innocent civiliians. The reason that the Iraq war has gotten
out
> of hand is that the US is not willing to fight a war the way the
> "terrorists" are. Drop a MOAB on Sadr City....any other attacks on US
> troops or interests result in another bomb on another city...inculding
> cities in IRAN.

Personally, I would rather just seem 'em nuked... It's so much more
economical than fighting a limited war...

The thing that these stupid ass camel fuckin' Bedouins don't seem to
understand is that if they really want us to leave, all they have to do is
quit fighting and play nice for awhile... We'll declare the war won and
leave... They can then go back to fighting amongst themselves...

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8cOdneUl1ZwxcFDYnZ2dnUVZ_uejnZ2d@whidbeytel.c om...
> <marshallkarp@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1171121347.891455.258440@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>
> What's a neocon?
>
> A term used by barking moonbats to describe anyone who doesnt suffer the
> mental disease that makes said moonbats think like they do.
>
>

"Moonbats?" LOL That is so last year.

What's a neoliberal?


On Feb 10, 10:29 am, "marshallk...@gmail.com" <marshallk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> What's a neocon?
>
> On Feb 10, 2:21 am, "RecScubaPoster" <recscubapos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The murdered Israeli leader Gen. Yitzhak Rabin opposed the First Gulf
> > War in 1990, warning that one never knows when starting a war where it
> > will lead. As Bush and the neocons are reportedly planning to attack
> > Iran, we should all think of the likely consequences.
>
> > Most Americans already believe that George Bush is not much influenced
> > by facts, but rather by his ideology. Already he is reportedly
> > thinking of his legacy and dreaming that history will prove him
> > "right." More disturbing are his religious beliefs, in particular his
> > daily readings of Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers, who argues that
> > if plans and events go wrong, it just means that God is testing
> > believers' faith, not that strategies should be changed. This may also
> > explain Bush's aversion
> > to diplomacy. After all, God does not "negotiate" with evil.
> > Various reports state that Iran is years away from the ability to
> > produce a single nuke. In a few years' time the government in Iran
> > could
> > easily change or modify its positions; indeed, already President
> > Mahmoud
> > Ahmadinejad is losing power. But time is running out for Bush
> > (although
> > not for America).
>
> > An article about Iran in The American Conservative by former CIA
> > officer
> > Phil Giraldi says that Bush may attack before Tony Blair retires in
> > April. Blair has already just sent two British minesweepers to the
> > Gulf.
>
> > U.S. war plans are reportedly counting on a few weeks of war (as they
> > did with Iraq) to disable Iran's nuclear and military industries. The
> > concept that the U.S. could simply destroy much of Iran then proclaim
> > the war over neglects all the lessons of Iraq, namely that a wounded
> > Muslim nation only gives up when it wants to. Repeatedly, the U.S.
> > loses
> > when we expect enemies to play by American rules.
> > Following are consequences we must anticipate following such an
> > American
> > attack:
>
> > Iran wouldblockade the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has new, "state of the
> > art" Russian anti-aircraft defenses as well as powerful Sunburn anti-
> > ship missiles purchased from the Ukraine, Chinese mines, and also
> > itself
> > manufactures other missiles. Anti-ship mines may already be in place,
> > able to be activated from shore.
>
> > U.S. strategy calls for destroying all the anti-ship missile
> > emplacements and small missile and mine-laying boats long deployed
> > along
> > Iran's coastline. Obviously, a surprise U.S. attack may miss some
> > Iranian weaponry, or U.S. Navy anti-missile systems may not work to
> > defend all ships in the Gulf. Probably Iran would try to sink tankers
> > (see a projected scenario) to set off a worldwide panic for oil
> > rather
> > than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause
> > insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits. Just
> > the risk of all this happening should be cause of great concern for
> > America and the whole world.
>
> > War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-
> > aircraft
> > and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying
> > Iran's
> > oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more
> > millions
> > of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney
> > hadn't
> > shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a
> > plan
> > of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere.
> > Jim
> > Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war
> > would
> > quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.
>
> > The far greater risk is that Iran would then retaliate against the
> > hopelessly exposed Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Gulf states oil facilities.
> > Iran
> > has already warned Qatar, where the U.S. has CENTCOM, that its vast
> > gas
> > compression facilities would be targeted if it allows a U.S. attack.
> > Washington announced that it was sending Patriot missiles to defend
> > our "allies," but there is no assurance that these would all work.
> > After
> > all, only one Iranian missile (or ground attack from sympathetic
> > Shias)
> > would need to get through. Also, the Bush administration has made
> > secret
> > the publication of test results for the U.S. anti-missile program.
> > This
> > could easily cover up corruption and incompetence. We already now are
> > finding out that some of our largest defense contractors have
> > designed
> > ships for the Coast Guard that aren't even seaworthy.
>
> > The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow
> > again
> > quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause
> > foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent
> > sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe
> > repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any
> > real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in
> > worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World
> > buying power.
>
> > American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under
> > threat
> > of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply
> > our
> > terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing
> > that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks
> > in
> > America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting
> > wars.
> > The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow
> > finite.
> > But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of
> > reprisals inside the U.S.
>
> > The attack would make America even more suspect and hated in the
> > whole
> > Islamic world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security
> > adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely
> > to
> > lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of
> > Islam at large."
>
> > War would greatly increase Russian power vis-à-vis Europe as the
> > latter
> > would become even more dependent upon Russian energy supplies. Already
> > a
> > majority of Europeans think that Washington is the greatest threat to
> > world peace. War would severely strain the American alliance.
>
> > We don't know the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese weapons
> > that
> > have been sold to Iran. There is a risk that they might be very
> > effective.
> > We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke
> > Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow
> > Gulf.
> > He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all
> > Americans
> > behind him in retaliating against Iran. It is hard to know what is in
> > his (and Cheney's) mind, but we do know that they are ignorant and
> > full
> > of wishful thinking.
>
> > American forces in Iraq would be very vulnerable to modern war
> > supplies
> > from Iran, for example, effective anti-tank weaponry such as that
> > used
> > by Hezbollah to destroy dozens of Israeli tanks. The long U.S. supply
> > convoys from Kuwait would be subject to much greater attacks. A
> > sustained Iranian missile attack on the Green Zone in Baghdad or the
> > Doha base camp in Kuwait could kill many Americans.
>
> > War would curtail the great influence of the religious Right in
> > Washington. Christian fundamentalists are the backbone of support for
> > continuing wars and chaos in the Middle East (see Armageddon Lobby).
> > Their power would finally backfire as more Americans become wary of
> > leaders who claim a direct line to God. The fundamentalists' passion
> > for
> > war, callousness towards the death of foreigners, fear and (almost
> > total) ignorance of the outside world, and unstinting support for
> > police
> > state measures out of Washington have already discredited them among
> > many Americans. Their fomenting another war would be a final blow.
>
> > The disasters for America could also weaken and challenge the power
> > of
> > the Israel Lobby, especially AIPAC. At least that is the concern of
> > writers at the major Jewish newspaper The Forward. The writers note
> > concern for the perceptions that Israeli interests fomented the
> > attack
> > on Iraq. The antiwar and anti-empire movement is also heavily Jewish,
> > but without "the New York money people" pushing America into war with
> > Iran, as warned by Gen. Wesley Clark.
>
> > Finally, another war might be the final nail in the Republican coffin
> > for a generation. The party would fracture. Republicans may be
> > the "Daddy Party," which once was thought to provide masculinity to
> > foreign policy, but as James Pinkerton says, "If dad keeps wrecking
> > the
> > car, then there may be reason to change.

Kula wrote:
> "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8cOdneUl1ZwxcFDYnZ2dnUVZ_uejnZ2d@whidbeytel.c om...
>
>><marshallkarp@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1171121347.891455.258440@h3g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
>>
>>What's a neocon?
>>
>>A term used by barking moonbats to describe anyone who doesnt suffer the
>>mental disease that makes said moonbats think like they do.
>>
>>
>
>
> "Moonbats?" LOL That is so last year.
>
>
and neocons the year before

<marshallkarp@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171149706.123875.278830@s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...

> What's a neoliberal?

No one knows, but we damned sure trolled one...